Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DavidLeighEllis (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 14 December 2013 (→Arbitration: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents.
If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser or oversighter in individual matters is currently limited by my non-Misplaced Pages obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

IAR a DRV?

That Earl DRV saw 6 endorses and 4 overturns, you can't just toss that aside in favor of your own opinion on the matter. We don't promote people to the admin corps to make decisions for us, we promote you to act according to the consensus of the community. Or in the brief 2 days this DRV was open, a lack thereof. This will get ugly if you don't have a change of heart; re-delete the article and allow the DRV to run its course, please. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the request so politely, Tarc. I know we've disagreed over deletion matters over the years, but I do not take this action lightly. The point of IAR is to improve the encyclopedia when the 'rules' answer is clearly the wrong one, and that's precisely why I've done what I've did. Mr. Earl has been covered in numerous reliable sources over the years, and not in an unreasonably negative or exploitative way. His BLP is quite well sourced and reflects NPOV within the scope of what I saw when personally verifying the contents of the reliable sources. Its retention is completely in line with our pillars, and its absence, even if temporary, lessens the encyclopedia. It's not a debatable matter, like fictional elements are, where good people can differ. His life and arrest record are a recurrent news matter, covered in the highest quality of news sources. The interpretations of various BLP or EVENT policies that would support a deletion are sufficiently without merit that the IAR close and restoration were justified. I get that some people want to make BLP trump encyclopedic coverage, but that's not a pillar-supported priority. Jimbo's take on BLP is that we have to get it right--but sometimes, getting it right means reporting the negative things that RS'es do. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but that isn't a valid rationale to toss a dozen-odd editor's input and sub in your own; you should have entered in a vote/opinion to overturn. I kinda swore off ANI and haven't even taken a peek at it in months, but I think this action may need to go up for review. Tarc (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I really think you should re-open the DRV and let it run the full seven days. Your rationale would make a fine contribution to the DRV, but I'm very uncomfortable with shutting down the discussion somewhat prematurely like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You both realize that the status quo before I corrected things was that Mr. Earl's name redirected to a completely different and entirely unrelated individual. That both sends readers to a completely different result, but it also denies Mr. Earl the publicity of Misplaced Pages, which might actually hamper Mr. Earl from receiving compassionate contributions, which are highest in the United States during this season of the year. In fact, the possibility of harm to Mr. Earl is at least as significant that I believe that in addition to my initially stated rationale, special BLP measures apply per WP:BLPBAN. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would hate to stop someone from having a happy holiday season--that's certainly not my intent. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't your intent--while I have taken issue with the arguments, closing, and now with one other admin's conduct, IAR closure is designed to be a panic-stop and call to reexamine the outcome in the light of the pillars. Doing so when I bore any personal animus against any other involved party would undermine the appropriateness of my action, and I continue to AGF that while people may be wrong, I have seen no evidence that anyone is intentionally misbehaving. Mr. Earl is not a well human being, but the fact is that whatever harm might befall him from Schadenfreude is far outbalanced by the fact that only public attention on the poor man's plight will get him any help--his notoriety, as covered by plenty of reliable sources over many years and reflected in his Misplaced Pages article, is the only way Misplaced Pages can actually help him, by drawing interested persons to his aide. This is exactly the opposite of the BLP arguments which were brought forward and uncritically endorsed. We're so used to BLP being used as an excuse to delete things, that in this process, no one ever stopped and said "Wait, could this actually be helping Mr. Earl?" Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm placing it in the hands of the ANI folk to decide. I just can't abide unilateral moves like this. Tarc (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:5P IAR is a pillar, and is of necessity and by definition unilateral. Feel free to seek to change it if you like. Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've edited Tarc's comment above to Wikilink the ANI discussion he opened, for ease of navigation. Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c): Hi Jclemens. I have undone your out-of-process close of the DRV. I understand that you are passionate about this, but it is not appropriate to short-circuit our review processes in such a manner. If you are right that my AfD close was incorrect, I am sure you will be able to persuade the other DRV participants of that, and a neutral editor will close the DRV accordingly. Please note that I have not re-deleted the article (and I will not) because, as you say, that could be interpreted as wheel-warring. At the end of the 7 days, the closer will either re-delete or keep restored the article as appropriate. Let's just both be patient and let the DRV run its course. 28bytes (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You're going to call my actions out-of-process, but then undo a close of a DRV on an AfD that you decided? That's... stunningly inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on here, but I think your use of BLP special enforcement is quite dubious. My understanding is that BLP spec is to ensure that articles are compliant with the BLP policy. And there is nothing in there about keeping an article because the presence of the article might earn the subject money. In fact I think this is somewhat opposed to Misplaced Pages's purpose, which is to document notable people/companies/etc not a place to promote people. Also WP:Deletion review#Temporary undeletion states that articles should be blanked, rather than the decision be completely reversed. Anyway, interested in your reasoning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not documenting a notable person deprives them of exposure; my reasoning clearly asserts that is directly harmful to do so in this case. This is not about promoting anyone, and certainly not about inappropriate puffery intended to portray the subject in an undeservedly positive light. No one said anything about Mr. Earl "earning" money--I spoke specifically to charitable contributions, which peak at this time of the year, and which can reasonably expected to be curtailed if his Misplaced Pages article is suppressed. The article in question was not "temporarily" undeleted--I restored it when I closed the DRV. An involved administrator has reopened the DRV, but wisely chose not to re-delete the article as that would have been wheel warring. You are entitled to disagree with the appropriateness of BLP enforcement... but BLP enforcement is not subject to consensus. Jclemens (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The rationale is still your opinion that the person is notable, which will be promoting him (in terms of his online profile) in order for him to receive donations. So in 5 or so days when the DRV is closed, if it's closed as endorse deletion, will you withdraw the special enforcement and allow the consensus to take precedence? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

All BLP special enforcement is opinion, under your criterion, and essentially on the same footing; that's why admins are entrusted with it, because we're expected to have the policy knowledge and track record to do it appropriately. The thing that I've changed by invoking special BLP enforcement, however, is that in order for the article to be re-deleted, a consensus to delete must exist--that is, we're no longer talking about a no-consensus close endorsing an AfD deletion. I guess it could technically do that, but then we have the AfD close restored by a DRV no consensus, but the special BLP enforcement left in place by that same no-consensus, which trumps the AfD. All this assumes that 28bytes' out-of-process reopening of my IAR close isn't undone as a violation of WP:INVOLVED, of course. Suffice it to say that there may be plenty more outcomes that I can't foresee, and speculating further is probably unhelpful. Jclemens (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding, "not documenting a notable person deprives them of exposure...", couldn't that effectively short-circuit any attempt to delete a BLP article up for discussion? Look at this from outside of the point-of-view of just the Henry Earl article, you need to consider the consequences of the things you do via the admin bit, as they can be cited as precedent by others down the road. I'd also consider the fact that your words could be construed as a support of the Misplaced Pages being used as an advertising/PR/promotional platform for article subjects. Is that why we're doing all this? Tarc (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It could indeed, Tarc, which is why I think the fact that Mr. Earl has been documented multiple times, over a decade or so, in US and international reliable sources. That is why this case is different than the run-of-the-mill promotional articles: because our normal notability rules would have deleted him if it were otherwise, and would delete the hypothetical other article you posit. Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Do not do this again. Your invocation of BLPBAN has been found to be frivolous, by a clear and active consensus of uninvolved observers at WP:ANI, and I – as an uninvolved administrator – have therefore formally marked it as overturned. As your BLP invocation has been found invalid, you are at this point neither entitled to hand out further "warnings" in this matter, nor to edit-war and invoke 3RR exemptions on the article. If you continue to edit against consensus in this matter, it will very likely end in you being blocked, and if you continue to abuse your admin role in the same way, it will end in your being desysoped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've cross-warned you at your talk page. ANI hasn't "found" anything, despite your insistence that it do. Regardless, thanks for striking, rather than deleting, the BLPBAN log entry you objected to. I'd really rather no one block anyone here, and but the fact is my assertion of harm on the basis of deletion or blanking is real, material, not frivolous, and not raised in bad faith. Regardless, I have to go to work, so I'm certainly not going to be doing anything to the article in the next ~12+ hours--I can't stop you from blanking it again, but I can tell you that you're wrong on both policy and ethical bases if you do so. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Saying that deletion would "deprive him of charitable contributions" means that you want it kept to advertise his charity. Violation of WP:CONSENSUS (your supervote), WP:SOAPBOX and probably WP:COI. Dark Sun (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours due to a growing consensus on ANI that your recent actions have constituted a disruprive abuse of adminship, as well as a seeming failure to admit the problem and a seeming likelihood for the problem to reoccur. A discussion is underway regarding your suitability to continue to hold admin privileges. If you wish to be unblocked to take part in this discussion, this can be done provided you agree not to return to the issues which have caused this block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

While I was the one that filed the initial ANI, I have to ask if this is really necessary at this point? Jclemens said he was going to be offline for ~12 hours, and we're 3 hours into that now. What is the block preventing? Tarc (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Further. Whether some agree or not JCelemens is reasonable and is listening and is responding in a calm and thoughtful way. This block appears to be punitive .(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC))

Not punitive, he's been editing disruptively, this is preventative. Dark Sun (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Preventative of what? What action(s) do you believe Jclemens would have done during the 24 hour period of this block had he not been blocked? WJBscribe (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

More supervoting, owning and advertising. Dark Sun (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The result of the AfD is still objectively unreasonable and should not stand; the deletion of Mr. Earl's page serves to harm him by obscuring public awareness of the notable individual's plight; and I expect that an arbitration committee well versed in BLP matters will find that I have acted within their designated remit, while the other administrators involved have not. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm declining this request for unblock for now because of the edit warring on Henry Earl. I think 24 hours is suitable time for a preventative block and for the ANI thread to complete. I won't bother blocking your alternate public account, which I think would just be an insult to an otherwise trustworthy admin, unless you stray from your talk page. However, if you can assure me that you will restrict yourself to your talk page, the ANI thread discussing you, and if you choose, Arbcom, then I will consider unblocking you under those restrictions (for the remainder of the 24 hours).--v/r - TP 22:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please use your main account for unblock requests. Dark Sun (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea if he's on a shared PC (which I assume he is). Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. Dark Sun, you'll note that 1) I said quite clearly I was going to work, 2) Noted above that I was logged in from work and 3) per my long-standing note at User:Jclemens-public "I also use this account regardless of SSL status when I'm logged into a computer that isn't exclusively mine." While it might not be obvious to all, any administrator can unblock their own account at any time, so logging on to a not-exclusively-mine computer to respond to an unblock request would have unnecessarily put the project at risk of actual disruption.

As far as the conditions TParis requests... I am ambivalent. The block was not preventative, and the conditions would not be preventative either. Well, I suppose the block does actually prevent me from engaging in the ANI thread... but the idea that I would be disrupting the encyclopedia if not blocked or restricted is ridiculous. If you really think, TParis, that you need that assurance from me to even consider (your word) an unblock, then you have no business granting me one. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The sanction you invoked on prevention of blanking is ownership and it was not official. Please stop insisting it should be kept as a soapbox. Dark Sun (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jclemens....I urge you to live out the block and not file an arbcom case.--MONGO 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MONGO is offering you some sound advice. I don't think the block was warranted, but at this point I think you should sleep on it and reassess things tomorrow – by then the block will be near to expiration anyway. I have a lot of respect for the contributions of both you and 28bytes (and for that matter a number of others involved in the DRV and ANI discussions), but I think taking this to ARBCOM would be detrimental to Misplaced Pages, and I think there could be a lot of collateral damage. There are a number of editors involved who aren't looking too good in my eyes... I realize it may be a matter of principle for you (in which case I wish you luck), but I sincerely urge you to be "the bigger man", let it go if you can, and just participate in the DRV discussion. I truly think it would be best for the project. Mojoworker (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• To give a resolution to your unblock request: on hold and referred to the current discussion on ANI as to whether you should remain blocked. NW (Talk) 22:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Unbolded "On hold" as you've !voted in the dispute and I'm going to give an uninvolved admin action in a moment.--v/r - TP 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey man, not sure what exactly is going on, but +1 moral support to you. Looks like a lot of drama, a lot of it probably left over from other times people have gotten into it with you, so hopefully there will be less drama soon instead of more. BOZ (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on your behalf - it is clear that there is some very wrong thinking going on for deleting articles. You could make an excellent case that it is anything but "WP:DECENCY", as one voter put it, to delete the article to "be nice" to someone who has spent his life being treated anything but nicely. However, that does not mean that there is merit to the notion of using BLP to preserve an article. BLP is not supposed to be a "let's change this article any way we can to be nice", even if it is usually interpreted that way. It is supposed to be a call for good sourcing and close adherence to policy. It would create an untenable position if we had a badly-sourced article, but deleting it would 'harm' the subject. Do we accept bad BLP writing, or risk damaging someone by our deletion? Well, that's a nonissue - we have no duty to the subject to have an article about him. Our duty is to the audience to allow people to work together to produce as many articles as they can with any kind of verifiability. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Closed the "Jclemens restriction" thread

I have closed the proposal that you banned from using your administrative tools where it concerns the policy on biographies of living persons as no consensus. Some opposed the sanction outright, others believe that this should an ArbCom issue.

Just speaking as an observing editor with an eight year track record (which includes sparking off a controversy by blocking Tony Sidaway over a DRV dispute several years ago), I don't think that your interpretation of the BLP enforcement policy will gain any more traction on ArbCom than it did in the community. Using IAR in this manner is also rather implausible. While "no firm rules" is indeed a pillar, it is not one that can be used as a club to knock down other pillars (in this case, people may think you have been swinging at the "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia" pillar). If the issue is not resolved, and the case winds up with ArbCom, I don't think they would be sympathetic to you here. Since I would hate to lose you as an administrator and editor, I recommend that you commit not to do something like this again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As clarification: You are not just speaking "as an observing editor", as the closer of a discussion on ANI regarding this editor, you are very much an involved editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I think I understand the differences between the two paragraphs fine. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So.... Thanks? It's worth noting that I was never notified of the discussion, nor invited to speak in my own defense, but that's kind of moot because I was technically prohibited from doing so for the entire discussion, or close to it. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

In what way does your treatment differ from the treatment of those editors that you've blocked? Seems to me you were treated pretty leniently. Eric Corbett 03:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Name me one editor I've blocked. I don't use the block button lightly. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration

Regretfully, since this situation appears likely to recur, I am filing a request for arbitration regarding the Henry Earl issue.